March 13, 2024

Litigation Funding Is an Asset – Not an “Albatross” – to New York’s Civil Justice System

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter

William Marra

|

March 13, 2024

If men were angels, government would not be necessary – and nor would litigation finance. But we are not angels, litigation is often an effective tool to ensure compliance with the law, and litigation is extraordinarily expensive .

New York is the financial capital of the world, so it’s no surprise that its courts have embraced litigation funding. When third parties provide capital to litigants or law firms in connection with legal claims, they help cash-poor litigants access the courts, and they allow large companies to pursue meritorious litigation and deploy limited cash into their core business.

Criticism nevertheless persists, exemplified by a recent  front-page article  in this newspaper profiling a law firm report that called funding an “albatross” on New York’s civil justice system that subjects our courts to “parasitism” and “fraud.”

The view that litigation funding is an “albatross” does not appear to be shared by New York’s judges, who have long recognized the significant benefits of litigation funding. As  two   separate  Manhattan Supreme Court justices have written, third-party funding allows “lawsuits to be decided on their merits, and not based on which party has deeper pockets or stronger appetite for protracted litigation.”

The law firm report profiled by the New York Law Journal suggested that litigation finance might violate usury laws. But several New York courts, including the Appellate Division, First Department, have already  rejected  this argument, recognizing that non-recourse funding does not implicate usury laws. That decision is consistent with virtually every other court in the nation to consider the issue.

Meanwhile, the New York Court of Appeals made clear in its 2016 decision in  Justinian Capital SPC v. WestLB AG  that litigation funding transactions do not violate the state’s champerty laws either, at least when they involve at least $500,000 of funding or do not involve the purchase or assignment of claims. The court implicitly dispatched critics’ claim that funders spur frivolous litigation, emphasizing instead the New York legislature’s assessment that funders will not invest $500,000 or more in a case “unless the buyers believed in the value of their investments.” Here too New York law is consistent with the country’s other major commercial centers, which likewise reject the argument that litigation funding violates champerty laws.

New York’s  courts, including the  First Department, even repeatedly reject efforts to seek disclosure of litigation funding, recognizing that communications with funders are neither material nor necessary to the case. These judicial decisions do not amount to “ obstructionism,” in the words of the anti-funding report featured by the Law Journal. They are, instead, consistent with the overwhelming trend of caselaw across the country.

The anti-funding report also echoed the criticism that litigation funding makes it harder and more expensive to settle cases, resulting in protracted and more expensive litigation.

Assume for a moment that litigation funding does result in higher settlement amounts. We have a Goldilocks’ dilemma: that settlement amounts increase with funding tells us nothing about whether settlement amounts were  too low  or  just right  to begin with. If impecunious litigants were previously forced to settle for less than the value of their claims simply because they could not afford excellent litigation counsel, then an increase in settlement amounts should increase welfare.

In any event, an emerging body of scholarship recognizes what those two Manhattan Supreme Court justices foresaw several years ago: litigation funding improves rather than undermines our litigation system, and likely results in less rather than more litigation.

One  recent paper  by Harvard and Stanford business professors published in the prominent Journal of Financial Economics presented a game theoretic model that found litigation finance will likely deter defense spending and expedite (rather than protract) litigation, as defendants are more likely to settle strong claims if they know they cannot grind down adversaries in litigation tactics.

Elsewhere, a co-author and I have  demonstrated  that litigation funders screen out (rather than promote) frivolous cases from our judicial system, and that the presence of litigation funding may result in fewer legal disputes because funding promotes compliance with the law. Another paper I co-authored explains that the hybrid fee arrangements that funders typically require—compensating lawyers with a portion of their hourly rates and a modest contingent fee upon success— better aligns the interests  of lawyer and client as compared to the pure hourly or contingent fee models.

All of these arguments are especially true of the commercial (as opposed to consumer) litigation finance industry, where sophisticated parties contract with litigation funders to pursue business-critical and highly meritorious affirmative claims. Commercial funders typically back less than 5% of opportunities they see. These cases—by proxy, the top 5% strongest cases filed in court each year—are precisely the types of cases our legal system should hear.

If men were angels, government would not be necessary—and nor would litigation finance. But we are not angels, litigation is often an effective tool to ensure compliance with the law, and litigation is extraordinarily expensive. Litigation finance helps people with meritorious claims access the courts and vindicate their rights. New York’s judges and lawmakers have not impaired funding to date and hopefully will not do so in the future.

Reprinted with permission from the March 8, 2024 edition of the “PUBLICATION] © 2024 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or  asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.”

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Recent Content

Apple v. OpenAI: How the World’s Most Valuable Company Is Using Trade Secret Law to Defend Its Competitive Edge

By Patrick Dempsey • August 18, 2026
On July 10, 2026, the most valuable company in the world accused the most talked-about company in the world of theft. Apple sued OpenAI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that OpenAI built its hardware ambitions on a foundation of Apple’s misappropriated trade secrets.¹ Few disputes touch as much of Certum’s Trade Secret Litigation Playbook at once: reasonable measures to guard a secret, identifying with particularity what was taken, and the human-centered points — recruiting and employee departures — where secrets actually walk out the door. Nearly every core theme in Certum Group’s Trade Secret Guide is in this case. And the lesson beneath it is worth sitting with: for the companies with the most to protect, trade secret litigation is not a last resort. It’s a front-line instrument of competitive strategy. Background The dispute sits at the intersection of two of the most closely watched storylines in technology. In 2025, OpenAI acquired io, the hardware venture founded by former Apple design chief Jony Ive and a group of other Apple alumni, for a reported $6.5 billion, and set out to build its first consumer hardware device, widely expected to compete directly with the iPhone.² To staff that effort, OpenAI hired aggressively from Apple. According to the complaint, more than 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI.³ Two of those hires anchor Apple’s allegations. Tang Yew Tan spent roughly 24 years at Apple, where he served as a vice president of product design responsible for the iPhone and Apple Watch, before becoming OpenAI’s chief hardware officer. Chang Liu spent about eight years at Apple as a senior systems electrical engineer before departing for OpenAI in 2026.⁴ Apple’s theory is not that a single rogue employee walked out the door with a file. It is that the movement of talent was accompanied by a coordinated effort, one Apple describes as operating “at every level," to extract and exploit the confidential information those employees carried in their heads and on their devices.⁵ The Allegations The complaint reads less like a garden-variety departure dispute and more like a catalog of the exact conduct the Trade Secret Guide warns companies to watch for. Among Apple’s central allegations: Apple claims OpenAI’s hardware leadership directed recruiters to use Apple’s confidential project code names during the hiring process, and instructed job candidates to bring “actual parts” and “CAD/design artifacts” to their interviews.⁶ It alleges that OpenAI circulated internal Apple documents marked “Need to Know” that coached departing employees on how to evade Apple’s exit-security procedures, including the “dreaded walkout,” and to alert OpenAI before signing their exit agreements.⁷ The specifics attributed to individual employees are what give the complaint its texture. Apple alleges that Chang Liu exploited an authentication bug to reach internal network storage after his access should have been cut off, messaging a colleague, “LOL, I found out I can access the [network storage], so funny,” and noting within hours of his departure that he “still ha[d] another computer.”⁸ And Apple alleges that io “exploited and used Apple’s secret, proprietary industrial design techniques,” misleading one of Apple’s own manufacturing partners about whether it was authorized to use a confidential metal-finishing technique.⁹ The trade secrets Apple says are at risk span the full arc of its product-development process: technical specifications for unreleased technologies, engineering presentations and prototype data, component and vendor selection processes, and the proprietary manufacturing techniques that turn a design into a shippable product.¹⁰ Notably, Apple’s opening ask is not a damages windfall. It is protection. Apple seeks to bar OpenAI from using or disclosing the information at issue, to compel the return of its confidential materials, and to preserve the evidence.¹¹ In other words, Apple is using the courthouse to do what its NDAs and exit interviews were supposed to do: keep its edge inside the building. OpenAI’s Response OpenAI has pushed back hard, and its answer is a preview of the fault lines any trade secret plaintiff should expect to fight over. On August 6, 2026, OpenAI moved to dismiss, characterizing the alleged conduct as “benign, lawful conduct” that Apple has mischaracterized, and arguing that its hardware executives simply followed standard industry recruiting practices.¹² As to Chang Liu, OpenAI contends he was “trying to help Apple” by assisting former colleagues who asked him to locate work information, not stealing anything.¹³ More pointed, and more instructive, is OpenAI’s argument that Apple’s own conduct undermines its case. OpenAI asserts that Apple allowed employees to use personal iCloud accounts for work and failed to properly revoke access when they left — noting that an Apple manager remained logged into Chang Liu’s personal iCloud account after his departure in order to transfer files.¹⁴ From that, OpenAI argues that Apple’s offboarding lapses created “confusion and unwanted access issues that Apple now characterizes as theft.” OpenAI also contends that Apple has not identified its trade secrets with adequate specificity, pointing instead to “generic categories of the product-development process.”¹⁵ OpenAI must file its full response by August 17, 2026, with oral argument on the motion set for October 1, 2026.¹⁶ Whatever the merits, OpenAI’s playbook is worth studying precisely because it is so conventional. Reasonable secrecy measures and identification of the trade secret with particularity are two of the elements every misappropriation claim rises or falls on, and they are exactly where a well-resourced defendant will apply pressure first. What This Means It is easy to read a case like this as celebrity litigation between two of the most valuable enterprises on earth. The more useful reading is that trade secret law has become core infrastructure for how modern companies protect competitive advantage. Apple did not respond to a $6.5 billion competitive threat with a press release or a patent portfolio. It responded with a trade secret complaint, because in a business where the crown jewels are unpatented know-how — manufacturing techniques, vendor relationships, unreleased designs — the Defend Trade Secrets Act and its state-law counterparts are the sharpest tools available. The case also throws the Trade Secret Guide’s central lessons into relief. The value of a trade secret program is only as good as the “reasonable measures” behind it; OpenAI’s opening move is to argue that Apple’s own iCloud and offboarding practices were not reasonable at all. The ability to describe what was taken, with specificity, is not a formality. It is frequently the whole ballgame at the pleading stage. And the human element — recruiting, exit procedures, the “dreaded walkout” — is where secrets actually leak, long before anyone reaches a courtroom. Companies that treat these as compliance checkboxes learn the hard way, in a complaint, that they were the strategy all along. For those of us who evaluate disputes for a living, Apple v. OpenAI is also a reminder of why high-stakes trade secret matters are among the most compelling on the plaintiff’s side. The conduct is often concrete and documentable, the competitive stakes are enormous, and, as the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Versata Software v. Ford underscored, the damages framework can reach the full value of what the misappropriation delivered to the wrongdoer, not merely a discounted license fee. That combination is exactly what makes these cases worth pursuing, and worth backing. Apple’s complaint will be tested, as it should be, and the allegations remain just that — allegations. But the strategic signal is already unmistakable. When the most valuable company in the world wants to defend its future, it reaches for trade secret law. Certum Group’s Trade Secret Guide is built to help plaintiffs and their counsel do the same, whatever their size, and this case is a live illustration of why that playbook matters now more than ever. Certum Group can help. If you are evaluating a trade secret dispute or want to talk through options for funding or de-risking one, get in touch . Footnotes ¹ Complaint, Apple Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. , No. 5:26-cv-07078 (N.D. Cal. filed July 10, 2026); see Apple sues OpenAI over alleged trade secret theft , TechCrunch (July 10, 2026). ² The wildest allegations in Apple's trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI , TechCrunch (July 13, 2026). ³ Id. ⁴ Apple sues OpenAI over alleged trade secret theft , TechCrunch (July 10, 2026). ⁵ Apple sues OpenAI alleging trade secret theft, says scheme was "at every level," CNBC (July 10, 2026). ⁶ The wildest allegations in Apple's trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI , TechCrunch (July 13, 2026). ⁷ Id. ⁸ Id. ⁹ Id. ¹⁰ Apple sues OpenAI over alleged trade secret theft , TechCrunch (July 10, 2026). ¹¹ Id. ¹² OpenAI Asks Judge to Toss Apple's Trade Secrets Lawsuit , Claims Journal (Aug. 7, 2026). ¹³ Id. ¹⁴ OpenAI says Apple's own security practices undermine its trade secrets case , TechCrunch (Aug. 6, 2026). ¹⁵ Id. ¹⁶ OpenAI Asks Judge to Toss Apple's Trade Secrets Lawsuit , Claims Journal (Aug. 7, 2026).

Chris Seidl Named to IAM Strategy 300 List of Leading IP Strategists

By Certum Group Team • August 13, 2026
Certum Group is pleased to announce that Chris Seidl has been named to the 2026 IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists list. IAM Strategy 300 is a global ranking of IP strategists who are leaders in developing and implementing strategies to maximize the value of IP portfolios. IAM identifies individuals through extensive research annually. Chris leads Certum’s IP finance strategy, including IP licensing, litigation funding, and acquisitions. This is the fifth consecutive year Chris has been included on the IAM Strategy 300 list.  Click here to see the complete rankings.

How Lawyers Can Use AI Effectively and Responsibly

By Certum Group Team • August 4, 2026
Artificial intelligence is quickly changing how legal work is researched, drafted, reviewed, and delivered. But while AI can improve efficiency, it also creates serious risks, including inaccurate analysis, fabricated citations, and potential court sanctions.  In this webinar, Certum Group brings together legal and business experts to discuss how lawyers can use AI to strengthen their work without compromising accuracy, professional judgment, or accountability.